Wondering if anyone would like to volunteer as an "analyst"? Anyone from Farsight let me know if this is not the best idea for a system, I think I'm loosely basing the idea on a manual I read before.

The Analyst would be a forum poster whom looks at the target description, looks at the viewer's results, and assigns a number about the results. The number is meant to denote accuracy, but doesn't necessarily indicate a "good" or "bad" job
It's sort of like frisbee toss. Missing a frisbee can be due to a lot of things: a bad throw, bad wind or "noise", or just a sneaky interception etc.

So the analyst would look at the viewings after a target is revealed and assign a number for the viewing from 0 to 3.

0: there are hits and Misses. The accuracies are based only on metaphors at best, or if the reality of the target is all a hologram. Basically, there is nothing that could be calculated as accurate in terms of literal comparison, nothing beyond what would be likely from random guessing. For example if the only accurate piece was "something red" and the playground has a red pole. Kind of hard to call it more than coincidence

1: there are some coincidences, perhaps actual "psychic hits" but it doesn't prove to be phenomenally accurate. It could still be a statistical likelihood of guessing the target. For example: if the target is outdoors, and a viewer describes "outdoors" - that could easily be coincidence. Still just a bit better than practically nothing accurate.

2: accuracy that seems unlikely. These are the ones we're normally aiming for. Has a spooky level of accuracy. Things that are hard to stretch as coincidence. Like showing the rough outline of a building that happens to be the target.

3: accuracy that seems even impressive amongst established remote viewers. For example: finding a house address, or naming a person whom is indeed central to the target. Contradictions nill or very negligible.

You could explain reasons for the number.

It's better if this is heard from someone that is neither the tasker nor the viewer

Great idea Full Spectrum -
I just made a similar observation that we need one, in another post - and I think it would be a great opportunity for someone to come in and use their skills too.
It would be immensely helpful to the RV Practise sessions.

Thanks for backing this, Del. Again to summarize. Really all I'm looking for is if someone could look at the results and give it either a 0, 1, 2, 3. (Exclusive or)